Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → DirectX 10... Whats the big deal?
12
DirectX 10... Whats the big deal?
2007-10-13, 7:29 PM #1
Does anyone really care? Honestly i don't see any difference at all, Of course i never have had a DX10 card, But even promotional videos don't look all that much better then DX9.
2007-10-13, 7:37 PM #2
looking at comparison screens i've seen of some games it seems they added some fancy effects (which could be done without DX10) like motion blur and crap

and call of juarez pulls the same BS move that games did with their "64 bit" versions with better textures and some more vegetation
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2007-10-13, 7:40 PM #3
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Honestly i don't see any difference at all, Of course i never have had a DX10 card


Think about this statement, then smack yourself soundly upside the head.
DO NOT WANT.
2007-10-13, 7:47 PM #4
Repeatedly.
Pissed Off?
2007-10-13, 8:25 PM #5
Followed by slowly chopping off your fingers.

Yes, that'll do.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2007-10-13, 8:33 PM #6
I'm not aware of any games that actually use DX10 to anywhere near its full potential at the moment.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-10-13, 8:58 PM #7
**** microsoft
2007-10-13, 9:09 PM #8
I saw a comparison done on various cards under dx10 and dx9 for a few games that support both. The image quality on the dx10 was marginally better in a few spots, but the one single thing that looked really cool was that the fog blended well, with no harsh lines where it intersects world geometry. It looked so much better. I wish I could remember the URL, I think I found it on slashdot or digg. The performance of dx9 was better in all cases, however (in all cases in this one article, anyway). It was cool because they had side-by-side pictures. Most of the time, you really had to look closely to see the changes.

Regardless, are the various releases of directx really for the benefit of the consumer directly? Or are they supposed to benefit the consumer indirectly by making it easier for developers to create games in the first place?
2007-10-13, 9:15 PM #9
"Regardless, are the various releases of directx really for the benefit of the consumer directly? Or are they supposed to benefit the consumer indirectly by making it easier for developers to create games in the first place?"

Even if it is just to make it easier for developers that's a good thing, because the amount of work involved in making a game is exponentially higher than it was back in, say, the JK days.
2007-10-13, 9:24 PM #10
**** that, john carmack will write doom 4 in assembly without drivers
2007-10-13, 9:27 PM #11
John Carmack has been fairly outspoken about how much of a pain it is to work with the mess ARB has created that is OpenGL.

Seriously, OpenGL has absolutely nothing on Direct3D anymore other than being cross platform.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-10-13, 9:57 PM #12
DirectX 10 contains a number of features that improve game performance when they are properly-utilized. The largest bottleneck for game performance is actually the tiered security model: 3D API calls need to be marshalled to ring 0, which is quite a computationally-expensive process. You can solve this problem by running the game in ring 0 like a console but that's retarded.

Direct3D 10 includes a number of features designed to limit the number of hardware calls that need to be made, and a new driver model that allows vendor-specific optimization, preprocessing and batching of operations.

To put it more simply, Direct3D 10 is better than Direct3D 9 because 10 is a bigger number than 9.
2007-10-13, 10:06 PM #13
Originally posted by JediGandalf:
Followed by slowly chopping off your fingers.

Yes, that'll do.


yes... and then send them to the Yakuza :neckbeard:
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2007-10-13, 11:49 PM #14
Right, So mostly better for Devs, Can maybe speed up games a little used properly and better fog. Got it.
2007-10-13, 11:58 PM #15
Originally posted by Jon`C:
To put it more simply, Direct3D 10 is better than Direct3D 9 because 10 is a bigger number than 9.


:neckbeard:
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2007-10-14, 12:42 AM #16
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Right, So mostly better for Devs, Can maybe speed up games a little used properly and better fog. Got it.


Sure you do.
Pissed Off?
2007-10-14, 1:20 AM #17
[http://www.proyectovg.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/d_10a.png]

one of the comparison shots.. idk... guess its just more crisp looking
2007-10-14, 1:40 AM #18
DirectX 10 just means fancier graphics and fancier mechanics. Just like most of the "upgrades" out there. Nothing revolutionary.

Also, keep in mind that next year they're gonna release DX10b (or 10.1, can't remember which) and you'll need a new GPU for those new additions! That's right, 8800GTX will be somewhat obsolete by then! Woohoo! :neckbeard:
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2007-10-14, 2:17 AM #19
What? I have seen DX9 look WAY better then that! That's like comparing JK to freaking lost coast!
2007-10-14, 5:52 AM #20
[http://im-gamer.com/images/img/directx_9_vs_10.jpg]
幻術
2007-10-14, 6:24 AM #21
OMG Tis Taht JK ?
2007-10-14, 6:34 AM #22
Originally posted by Brian:
the fog blended well, with no harsh lines where it intersects world geometry. It looked so much better.


call of duty 2

Originally posted by Koobie:
[http://im-gamer.com/images/img/directx_9_vs_10.jpg]


i bet that could be done in DX9
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2007-10-14, 6:41 AM #23
Visually, isn't DX10 just DX9 but can do more operations?
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2007-10-14, 7:17 AM #24
Why are all the DX9 comparision pics just worse lit than the DX10 ones (expet some shaders)
VTEC just kicked in, yo!
2007-10-14, 7:45 AM #25
I've seen that mountain-comparison shot before, and every time I see it, I wonder, "Why did the sky texture change?"
the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot - LC Tusken
2007-10-14, 7:52 AM #26
Originally posted by Wolfy:
I've seen that mountain-comparison shot before, and every time I see it, I wonder, "Why did the sky texture change?"


.
2007-10-14, 8:03 AM #27
Originally posted by Wolfy:
I've seen that mountain-comparison shot before, and every time I see it, I wonder, "Why did the sky texture change?"

Because it's DirectX 10, duh. :P
Naked Feet are Happy Feet
:omgkroko:
2007-10-14, 8:24 AM #28
Originally posted by FastGamerr:
DirectX 10 just means fancier graphics and fancier mechanics. Just like most of the "upgrades" out there. Nothing revolutionary.

Also, keep in mind that next year they're gonna release DX10b (or 10.1, can't remember which) and you'll need a new GPU for those new additions! That's right, 8800GTX will be somewhat obsolete by then! Woohoo! :neckbeard:


Except there's only like 4 minor changes in 10.1, so no, they won't be obsolete.
2007-10-14, 9:08 AM #29
... Seriously people?
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2007-10-14, 9:48 AM #30
i has directx 13 already n00bs
gbk is 50 probably

MB IS FAT
2007-10-14, 10:00 AM #31
CoolMatty develops Web3.14
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2007-10-14, 10:20 AM #32
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
Except there's only like 4 minor changes in 10.1, so no, they won't be obsolete.


the most profound change being the enforcement of the unified shader model architecture in hardware.
2007-10-14, 11:35 AM #33
Originally posted by DrkJedi82:
and call of juarez pulls the same BS move that games did with their "64 bit" versions with better textures and some more vegetation


Did they even release a non-dx10 version of that over there?

Just wondering because they never released a DX-10 here. :neckbeard:

Also its a kickass game.
nope.
2007-10-14, 1:27 PM #34
Originally posted by Koobie:
[http://im-gamer.com/images/img/directx_9_vs_10.jpg]


Holy crap. The water in the DX10 shot looks ten thousand times better...
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2007-10-14, 1:30 PM #35
Thats FSX right? Ya i saw that before. on my DX9 ATI it looks about a million times better then either one. Except for the better clouds.
2007-10-14, 3:28 PM #36
*Walks in
*Looks at thread
*Smacks forehead with palm
*Walks out
2007-10-14, 4:00 PM #37
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Thats FSX right? Ya i saw that before. on my DX9 ATI it looks about a million times better then either one. Except for the better clouds.


In my town they call it photoshop.
2007-10-14, 4:19 PM #38
http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13647&mode=threaded&pid=138277

The thread shows a difference between DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and OpenGL 2.1.
2007-10-14, 5:05 PM #39
Maybe if all the Pics were of the SAME THING it would be a lot easier!
2007-10-14, 5:18 PM #40
Yeah that's a really horrible comparison...
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
12

↑ Up to the top!